Skip to main content

About this Show

Stossel

Contains 1 quote

NETWORK

DURATION
01:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v761

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1280

PIXEL HEIGHT
720

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 15, New York City 5, John 4, Sandy 3, America 3, Paul Gallay 2, Smith 2, Patrick Moore 2, Bjorn Lomborg 2, Alex Epstein 2, Greenpeace 2, U.s. 2, Celebrex 2, Carfax 2, China 2, James Taylor 1, Xfinity Watchathon Week 1, The China 1, Hashtag 1, Nasa 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX Business    Stossel  

    April 18, 2014
    12:00 - 1:01am EDT  

12:00am
>> here in the u.s. or in anywhere? just acts -- asking. . >> happy earth day. >> happy earth day. >> earth day is next week, it's time to get hysterical about global warming. and overwhelming science. overwhelming? >> this is a huge, huge, planetary crisis. >> what should we do about it? >> um, i'm not sure. >> it can be as simple as riding the bus or subway to work. >> well, do i that. or this. >> i'm such a good citizen. going to save the earth. >> we need to get a sense of priority. how much wealth are we going to forego creating in order to have zero discernible effect on
12:01am
the environment. john: a practical earth day, that's our show, tonight.. >> and now john stossel. john: tuesday's earth day. this is a holiday that brings out stupidity in people! we will hear all kinds of bizarre things this week, some on this program. the premise is noble, we all want to protect the environment, but there's this religious-like satisfaction people get by thinking that they can save the planet for man's extravagance. you get a taste of that in the movie "noah's ark." >> my father said one day man would continue in his ways, his plan would annihilate the world. john: i misspoke, it's just "noah" about noah's ark.
12:02am
environmental annihilation is coming because we've been evil. we pollute, frack, cut down trees, overconsume. cheer up. we can save ourselves, we face a fork in the road. >> we can continue on our current path, where we rely on outdated electricity grids, inefficient buildings and dirty power plants that contaminate our air. or we can change. we can create greener cities where solar panels and winter powers our homes. this cleaner, more sustainable future is within our grasp. john: it's within our grasp. greener cities with solar panels and wind power. our president has a plan, too. he says -- >> we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. [ applause ] >> whoopy! and they all applaud, but oops,
12:03am
by 2015? that's next year, and america doesn't have a tenth that many electric vehicle. to put it in perspective, this is what we've got versus the president's prediction. if we reached his goal, wouldn't have had any real effect on climate change. most americans, including our politicians, aren't very good with numbers, they are worse with science. let's turn to two specialists, one who's right and one who's
wrong. it might not be fair, but now you know where i stand. james taylor studies environmental policy at the heartland institute, paul gallay is president of the environmental group riverkeeper. how am i getting it wrong? >> deny the problem, that's not american, john. we're here to solve problems, not to deny them. john: the problem is climate change? >> the problem is giving our kids and their kids a planet we'll be happy to give them and
12:04am
happy to live on giving them a better standard of life than our parents gave us. d-fashionened values and you as a conservative should be embracing not ridiculing them. john: well, just for clarity, i don't call myself a conservative, a call myself a libertarian. big difference. >> i'm sure there is. i'm learning that now. john: but -- don't you want to preserve the planet for your children? >> absolutely, we all do. our current path, as we saw in the clip. what is the path in it's a sound path. we reduced air emissions 70% since 1980 and the trend is going down, we're doing a great job. john: let's be clear, when people hear the crisis about greenhouse gases, they think the air is getting dirtier. you agree, as far as the bad stuff we inhale, the particulates, sulfur dioxide, that stuff has gone down. >> clean water does work.
12:05am
we have to keep making them work. the clean water act, all the rivers were supposed to be fishable and swimmable. anybody fish or swim or boat? i think so. only half the rivers that we were supposed to clean up have been cleaned up. let's finish the job. john: and riverkeeper helped make that happen, and cooperating with government, passing laws, but they are getting cleaner, right? there's been delay in some of the treatment, but it's moving in the cleaner direction. i can fish and swim in the rivers right next to new york city. >> you can sometimes. but when it rains, you end up with so much pollution, that you can't do that. so we've been cutting that pollution slowly but surely, but you know what happened since the 80s since the libertarian movement took wing. we stopped spending on infrastructure that's not the values that i grew up with, when i looked at my dad, and he was a republican committeeman a he said you invest in your community. he talked about the greatest
12:06am
generation. we don't talk about the greatest generation anymore because we don't emulate them. john: we're not investing in our community? >> paul talks about spending, i talk about results. if we see our environment getting cleaner, why are we saying we're not spending enough. i want to see results and i'm seeing results. epa is seeing results that's more important. >> the government of the state of new york worked with the city of albany to cooperatively get them to spend 140 million dollars that the take the quality of water in the hudson from the worst to the first. it's a proven set of laws. >> i can drink this practically unfiltered. >> i'm going to send you up to albany after a rainstorm and watch you drink it, that will not be fun for any of us. maybe the viewers get a kick out of it. >> river viewer's website says one sustainable option, smart energy, wind, solar power, biomass, biofuels, geothermal,
12:07am
hydro power. what's wrong with the argument? >> we see pollution is declining. why do we need to have wind power, wind turbines which require 600 square miles of land development to replace power plants. especially when the costs are so much higher, this takes money away from environmental issues, as well as health issues and housing isissues, et cetera. >> what's wrong with solar power? . >> it's land and water intensive. solar water power requires two to four times more water than conventional energy, and where are we producing solar power? in the deserts where we need the water. >> the biggest growth in solar energy is roof tops. it's what they call a disruptive development which the old style of generating power and sending it through transmission lines in people's communities is less and less important. you had 30% of the power created in 2013 was solar. same thing with wind. i have them on my rooftop. >> bless you for that. you are a good guy.
12:08am
>> but i only put them there because the idiot state of massachusetts throws money at me to subsidize my putting them there. poor people who can't afford to buy a house have to pay for it. >> every dollar of subsidy of the wind and solar and energy efficiency, there's $13 of subsidy for fossil fuel. you can buy a -- john: james i got to let you answer that. >> buy an suv and get a huge tax credit for the old hybrid. >> when we're talking kilowatt hour for kilowatt hour for subsidies, wind power receive ten times as manysubsidies for natural gas, 50 times as coal power. it's merely because conventional energy is more efficient, more effective and has far greater market share than wind and solar. he wants to talk about aggregate but doesn't want to talk about per kilowatt hour. john: more subsidies for power and coal? >> kill them all, john, kill them all. >> we can agree on.
12:09am
i want a transition, i want a transition that is smart, sensible and gets us where we need to go. i'll be perfectly honest with you, i would a price on carbon, but done in revenue neutral fashion and i want to know why republicans, i realize i'm with the libertarians now, republicans have walked back from their own baby, cap and trade was their baby. in 1990 the first bush administration came up with that. john: carbon tax would be better. paul, your side has won the debate. when i interviewed people on the street, most everyone said they were worried about global warming and talked about wind power and solar power. >> solar power, definitely. >> solar. >> it's cleaner. >> we're a big fan of wind in the u.k., we have a lot of wind. john: james, you've lost. >> i think people are concerned because they hear so much in the media. but when you prioritize, when you ask people what are you most concerned about. what do you want politicians to
12:10am
deal with? global warming comes in dead last. in that case week have hope, we're not going to sentence ourselves to economic deprivation based on the false global warming issues. >> you're not worried about global warming? >> not at all. temperatures that rose during the 20th century about one degree. you can't tell the difference. it's 43 outside right now in new york city. john: that's new york city. >> small amount of warming that is beneficial. when we look at the 7,000, 8,000 years, we are much cooler than the long-term average. when we hear the mantra, what's the hottest decade on record. what they define is merely the past 100 years since the little ice age ended. in a long-term context and appropriate context we are quite cool. john: here's what you're president says about skepticism like yours that dismissed the promise of renewable energy. >> some of these folks want to dismiss the promise of solar
12:11am
power and wind power and fuel-efficient cars. they make jokes about it. they wer around when columbus set sail? they'd be charter members of the flat earth society. >> i got to respond to something james said, the idea that global warming, climate changes is good for you. go to the folks who lost their home in hurricane sandy, which james believes would be worse. >> let's compare the number of hurricanes now versus 30, 40, 50 years ago. the number of hurricanes is declines. you want people to believe there's never been a hurricane before. we see many more hurricanes like hurricane sandy. hurricane sandy was category 2 at strongest. when you look at 3, 4, 5 hurricanes they used to strike the new york city hurricane on a regular basis. we saw major categories coming up the east coast frequently. we don't see that anymore. >> folks used to say it's a
12:12am
hoax, now they say it's good for you. pick a story and stick with it. >> just to be clear, in some cases it's good because more carbon dioxide is good for plant growth. you see crop increases, crop production increasing, declining number in severity of tornadoes and hurricanes. any way you mention, there are thrives of warmer temperatures. >> when you say heartland, that is heartland institute. serious scientists are worried might happen if we have the type of warming that is not going to happen for centuries. we were there a thousand years ago during the medieval warm period. we were there 2,000 years ago during the roman warm period. his science used faith based science, they published a paper a couple of weeks ago. 20 citations, 11 of them are 30 years old or more. 6 more than were created by the people who wrote the paper.
12:13am
>> we're getting into wonky territory here. >> let me tell you the difference between faith based science and true science. he is faith based he looks at the computer projections. >> i am quoting real world facts, real world data from today, stuff we are able to measure and improve. we program the computer models to say. this that is faith based o cf1o science. >> you pay your ientists, we don't pay ours. >> you work for free? john: thank you, both, paul gallay and james taylor. you're not the singer. keep the conversation on facebook or twitter, hashtag earth day, let people know what you think. a few people i interviewed were utterly skeptical about global warming. is the globe warming? >> i don't think so. john: it's not? >> don't buy it. john: the globe isn't warming. i won't go that far.
12:14am
the earth has warmed not for the past 17 years. we're in a warming trend and putting lots of carbon dioxide in the air, record amounts and many serious climatologists are concerned. what do we do about that? that's next.
12:15am
12:16am
12:17am
well it's official... xfinity watchathon week was the biggest week in television history. but just when you thought it was over... what now? with xfinity on demand you can always watch the latest episodes of tv's hottest shows. good news. like hannibal... chicago fire.... ...and bates motel. the day after they air. xfinity on demand. all the latest episodes. all included with your service. it's like hi-fiving your eyeballs. xfinity...the future of awesome.
12:18am
. >> james smith here. got one word for you, trees. when our movie comes out, you'll see what happens if we don't start taking care of our world. john: that was jaden smith, son of the famous actor will smith. their movie came out and pretty much sank without notice. good! i'm so sick of the hype about our dying planet and how all of us must pay more for an electric car or something. it's mindless anti-scientific propaganda. we heard it since the first earth day, here's how cbs hyped that. >> the water's wreak, we are in a crisis of survival. >> this is a cbs news special. earth day, a question of
12:19am
survival. john: somehow, we since that earth day and though i never heard it from walter cronkite, most of life got better. some of it got better because we passed environmental rules and got the filth out of the air and the sewage out of the water, that is good. we're told we're in big trouble because of greenhouse gases, and sadly most people in washington, d.c. believed that. >> we're not going to be able to survive in the same way that we have been all this time. john: we're not going to survive? please, odds are we will not only survive but life will get better. left wing environmentalists bjorn lomborg who says global warming is a real problem says industrialization will make things better, how? >> fundamentally, look, if you're poor, have you bad air, bad water and you die very soon. john: you have bad air because you burn dung to heat your hut?
12:20am
>> exactly. half the world's population live with air that kills 4.3 million each year. it's the biggest environmental problem. the world health organization told us a couple weeks ago. we talk a lot about global warming, it is a problem, something we need to fix but need to get a sense of priority, by far the most appropriate thing is indoor and outdoor pollution, that's about getting people out of poverty. >> and america reduced greenhouse gas emissions in spite of government. fracking. which a lot of governments forbid? >> surprisingly, the number most people haven't heard, if you take all the solar panels and wind turbines in the world, which we spend 60 billion dollars supporting each year. they have caught less than what u.s. fracking managed to do globally. you've done more for the global environment than solar and wind. that's worth pondering.
12:21am
we are paying 60 billion for the privilege of having the solar and wind panels. you are making about $100 billion on fracking. that's a much better deal. john: our government pushes stuff like electric cars, and even if we did reach the goal they've had a million electric cars by 2015, next year, unlikely. >> not going to happen. john: that will cost 7 billion dollars? how much would that delay global warming? >> it would be infinitesimal. john: by one hour, according to the environmentalisticalclation. >> if you do the calculation, one hour. and fundamentally what that tells you this is a symbolic act. john: and among the general public, when you talk to people on the street, there is an attitude it's bad, it's going to make things worse, now the new ipcc reports sounds like we're all going to die, los angeles times headline, crop yields are down, deaths from
12:22am
heat are up. "new york times," the worst is yet to come. more carbon dioxide is good for plants and the price of food by and large has gone down because of industry. >> absolutely. these are very misleading reports. there is a problem and so you, too in the long run will probably make growth rates and yields slightly lower, what you have to remember they are going to keep going up. we're going to be able to produce more and more food, and we'll be able to produce slightly less more and more food because of global warming. not the worst is yet to come. yes global warming is probably going to cost in the order of 2% of gdp. john: says you. >> that's the ipc report, the second half of the century. remember, that is one year -- john: if you can afford that, you can adjust to that. >> it's one of the many problems we will fix, and mostly by making sure people stop being poor.
12:23am
remember people worry about hurricanes and that's a whole other conversation, if a hurricane hits a ric area like florida. there's lots of damage. fundamentally people survive. if it hits a poor country like guatemala it wipes out 10,000 people and costs a third of their economy. it's about getting people out of poverty trap and making sure they get rich. then they'll be much better off. john: free markets do that. thank you, bjorn lomborg. coming up, more on earth day and argue about nuclear power and one of my guests says worrying about climate change is racism against people. [ female announcer ] it's simple physics... a body at rest tends to stay at rest...
12:24am
while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinicaltudies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death.
12:25am
patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex.
12:26am
hello. shopping for a used car with the right history? yeah. i don't want one that's had a big wreck. oh, our team tracks millions of accidents. yeah, doug to carfax... i got an accident report on vin# 1dc... moles? they dig up the facts. naturally. let carfax® help you find the right used car with the right history. i like it. start shopping now at carfax.com
12:27am
. john: nothing like a clean glass of water. and i got this right out of a new york city tap! pretty pure! despite millions of people
12:28am
flushing right around here. getting most of the filth out of water is one of the few good things government's done, and it was the first earth day protest years ago that helped make that happen. so good for the environmentalists, good for the government. but like all things with government, their rules grow and grow and never stop. 15 years ago the environmental regulators could have said stick a fork in it, it's done, we're going home now. but the regulators never do, that they always do more. and when they d they run over people. people like california farmer john duarte. he joins us now with his lawyer tony francois of the pacific legal foundation, what did they do to you? >> they told us we couldn't farm our ground. they gave us cease-and-desist order and told us we couldn't farm our land. john: because? >> because they presumed we had stepped into wetlands and other areas that we shouldn't be
12:29am
farming and don't want to farm. john: and you did buy some land that had wetlands on it and you planted wheat but avoided the wetlands? >> we flagged them, mapped them, went around them and didn't touch them. john: not because you are not supposed to but because? >> i don't want my tractor to get stuck. i don't want to break the law. we are completely willing to stay out of habitats. john: tony, take it from there. >> john, what happened in this case as john mentioned is that the corps of engineers, agency of the federal government, issued mr. duarte and his company a cease-and-desist order which basically prevents them from farming their property. they've done this on a completely erroneous version. john: they never looked at the property, they assumed he must have? >> their order is based on available information, and despite our requests for what they base it on, they have
12:30am
never told us. john: now, wetlands are important. the army corps of engineers says this is habitat for fish and wildlife, flood protection, water quality improvement. >> yes, they are. they are important. they are protected and we stayed out of them. if we had the opportunity to explain exactly what our practices were before we planted any wheat, we could have solved this ahead of all these troubles. john: so what's this about? >> about due process. john: what's in their heads? >> we can't tell you that. i can tell you what's in our heads is we want to farm property sensibly, sustain plea, we know the public is demanding farming be done in a sustainable way, and we know the consumer wants sustainable operations, we're game, happy to play ball there. has to be a reasonable process for the regulators to oversee that. john: and tony, the pacific legal foundation sees lots of the cases, the bureaucrats
12:31am
always want more power. >> they mean well, i assume, but they almost have to do more. >> i characterize the average bureaucrat is the fellow you than has to be on the home owner's association to enforce the rules andhe corps of engineers is that guy. in this case, you know, although these are described as wetland, it's important to understand, these are not the ever glades, they are small, maybe the size of this table, depressions in the ground that hold water for a few months a year. this is the corps going well beyond their charge to protect navigable waters into rolling grassland hills looking for wet spots and then using false facts and no process to deprive people of property. john: because they're mean? because they're crazy? why? >> this is very similar if you went home today and the police barricaded off the front door
12:32am
of your home and said to you, cease and desist, you cannot use your home. you violated laws, and you would tell your attorney, send a letter back and say please tell me exactly what laws you violated. and you received another letter with no answer to the original question of what did i do from the enforcement and prosecutor in the local county. when we asked what we did, they kicked up to the enforcement branch of the army corps in sacramento and haven't told us why we can't use our property. john: what's this cost you? >> two years of farming the property. we would like to develop the property into permanent crops, probably walnuts, it would involve 4 million dollars in investment where the property lies. the county has 11% unemployment rate. john: and this is one of the reasons why. thank you, tony and john. next, the founder of
12:33am
greenpeace wants you to die. i'll confront him about that
12:34am
12:35am
12:36am
12:37am
. john: there's one ample f energy that produces no greenhouse gas, that's nuclear power. but when we ask people about it, most recoiled. >> it's scary. >> wow. nuclear energy is the worst. john: he must be right, the worst. because i saw jane fonda and jack lemmon in that movie the china syndrome. >> [ bleep ]. >> to the core. >> operations? >> this is jack, we have a serious condition, you get everybody into safety areas and make sure they stay there.
12:38am
>> directly to safety areas. caution, caution, this is not a drill. john: the china syndrome title referred to the movie's claim that the nuclear plant meltdown was going to burl through the earth all the way to china, and then came three mile island. >> something happened at the power stations cooling system and radioactive steam was released inside the plant and leaking through the thick wall of the plant into the air. john: my goodness, and after that there was the chernobyl nuclear plant explosion in russia which killed a million people, and most recently in japan, fukushima. >> smoke is pouring out of nuclear reactor number 4 at fukushima. still at the mercy of the winds and which way radiation gets carried. john: it turned out that scare and the others were exaggerated. no one died from fukushima or three mile island. no one was even hurt. and i lied about chernobyl, i said a million died.
12:39am
did you even catch that. but you accepted it. 56 people did die, but not a million, and most died fighting the fire. people are so scared of radiation that they'll believe just about anything. patrick moore, co-founder of greenpeace used to fear nuclear power. you once called nuclear energy synonymous with nuclear holocaust, yes? >> it's enough to make me cringe today. we were fighting against nuclear war and the threat of nuclear war, john, and i think the mistake we made, and i was a serious science student. we believed that radiation was bad and anything that had to do wi radiation should go. and today when i think about that, the fact that nuclear medicine is such an important part of medicine, diagnosing and treating millions of people with high level radiation and doing it for good, and nuclear energy, which is the safest form of energy we have.
12:40am
the statistics are there. the chernobyl is the only nuclear accident that did cause mortality and it was a style of reactor that should never have been built. the soviets took a shortcut during the cold war and built about 25 all around the former soviet union. we're lucky only one blew up because the design was flawed. fundamentally flawed so it could blow up, and that's what happened with the chernobyl reactor. the world health organization says 56 deaths can be attributed to it. and no serious health effect in the people evacuated afterwards after being exposed to way high levels of radiation, way higher than fukushima. john: it's not as risky as people think and you say let's build nuclear plants in the america. >> this is why i joked about you want people to die. >> if the environmental movement recognized nuclear energy was far superior to
12:41am
using coal for large continuous power plants, there would be more nuclear plants today. there's over 100 in the united states running every day. but there might be 3 or 400 now and whereas we're getting over half of our electricity from coal, it's going down a bit now because gas is from the fracking, gas is coming in to replace it. but there's no doubt that worldwide if the environmental movement embraced nuclear energy, we would have far less coal power and far less deaths from coal mining and the pollution it causes. >> i hear if there are more nuclear plants, we are subject to terrorism. the fuel can be made into nuclear bombs. >> the fuel can't be made into nuclear bombs. you try and steal nuclear fuel, it's not easy. the fact that no terrorist has never targeted a nuclear plant is one piece of evidence why it isn't very likely. terrorists prefer subways and shopping centering and political targets, and financial targets.
12:42am
they have never made any effort to go into a nuclear plant. john: fuel can't be made into a bomb? it's different? >> totally different. enriched to 3 or 4%, uranium 235. bomb grade fuel has to be enriched up to 90%. two totally different things. john: i'm sold. i've always believed and appalled nasa doesn't tell the public it's nuclear fuel in the rockets because they're afraid people won't like it. but if it's so good why does nuclear power need all the government subsidies, get the government out of it. the price anderson act limited liability for accidents, the energy policy act, 13 billion in subsidies. george bush, 20 billion in nuclear loan guarantees. get off the dole. >> the loan guaranties are not a subsidy. they are taking a risk on the part of the public. john: so is any business. >> the production needs to be
12:43am
involved in energy supply. they're benefitting from getting the energy. if we want nuclear energy. . john: i benefit from my blackberry, i admit i have one of these. >> there will be subsidies in the chain. the loan guaranties are not giving money, no money given to anybody. they are guaranteeing the project, so it makes it less expensive to borrow the money, which in nuclear takes five years to build a plant and all that money has to be spent. billions have to be spent before a nickel comes out of it. john: we'll have to continue that discussion, thank you patrick moore. next, if you celebrate earth day, does that make you racist? my guest says yes.
12:44am
12:45am
12:46am
12:47am
. john: you been to a u.n. earth summit, lately? i hope not. here's a sample of the artwork. that's the earth to the left with a thermometer in its mouth. why is earth sick? the doctor says you have humans. humans. we apparently are now a disease. alex epstein of the center for industrial progress that celebrates human progress says
12:48am
the environmental movement progress practices a form of racism, racism against the human race. really? what do you mean? >> let's think about this kind of graphic because it's an extreme graphic, but you hear this all the time. i've heard stephen hawking say. imagine if the sun or god saw earth and what would they think of us? they would think we ruined it. that's the exact opposite of what i think. if i'm an alien and say humans are not unnatural. i'd say they build the best nests, they have done such a good job making the earth good for them. we have. why can't they see that? john: it's not natural. >> right, why don't we consider human beings natural? we're part of nature. why do we exclude us. i include human racism. nonhuman is good, and human is bad. john: people burn coal, birds don't, bears don't. >> too bad for the birds and the bears, they don't have a
12:49am
mind. john: they are not destroying the earth, that's are? >> if you talk about destroying or destructing from the perspective of someone. if we talk about the perspective of a human being, burning coal is amazing, we have an earth that can hold 7 billion people. everyone in the studio would have to go. thank man for coal. john: all right. and here's examples of the anti-human, as you say, racist, attitude. the sierra club fighting climate change with family planning. in other words, have fewer children for the earth. the telegraph, did attenborough, the broadcaster, environmentalist, humans are a plague on earth. prince philip, former president of the world wildlife fund. i'm tempted to ask for reincarnation of a particularly deadly virus. >> yes, so the key is when they talk about the earth, they don't mean the earth for humans. they mean the earth saving the
12:50am
earth from humans. i believe we need to improve the earth for humans. if you think that's the idea of calling us a cancer is horrible. we cure cancer. john: but we cause global warming? >> we cause a lot of things, every species survives by transforming the world around him. sometimes you accomplish what you want, sometimes you have a side effect. at worst it would be a side fect. what we found is the side effect is not that bad but the effect of burning all this cole is we have the safest climate in history because we build a comfortable and durable civilization, if you care about the poor people around the world, let them build fossil fuels so they can be safe from climate too. john: you use an example to show the grand canyon to show how groups think? >> if you were against oil, how are you going to get to the grand canyon. people used to not move around at all. i've been to the grand canyon, that's because of oil, because
12:51am
of technology, because we've improved the earth. what they call a cancer. i call that great. john: and they appreciate it because it's beautiful, and no people should be around. you say? >> historically there are no people, there the whole thing is a scam. they think the grand canyon should exist and no one should see it and contemplate the landscape in our yard while we are border line starving to death. that's a primitive life. i want a life where i can enjoy nature and the man made. john: the same philosophy behind the idea of gmo foods which can save lots of lives. >> no evidence they are harmful. all the evidence they are helpful. the reason they are opposed is they are mand made, and man made is mind made and made for man. it's neutral for us. john: it's not just man made, maybe it will change the food to kill us and there will be a mutation. >> deliberately made to help us. it's using the mind to benefit human life.
12:52am
if you are against man made, you are against the mind and human life. john: racist against the human race. >> yes. we as a race have low self-esteem and time for human esteem. >> this is one form of esteem. i love fossil fuels. fossil fuels improve the planet around us, overall it's amazing and so we should love the earth we've made on earth day or call it man day. john: let's call it man and earth day. thank you, alex epstein, next, we heard one glimmer of hope. good news when talking to people about earth day, from a child. i'll show you what i think this girl should run for president, after the break.
12:53am
12:54am
12:55am
12:56am
. john: this earth day, it's time to ask, what are people thinking? are they thinking at all? >> temperatures are changing now because of i guess the ozone layer. >> global warming? pretty much ruins everything around the world. >> too much hair spray in the 80s. john: she at least i think was joking. most everyone told us they want to stop climate change, and then when i asked them how, they're not so clear. they look for rituals that mak them feel cleansed. >> make actions in their own? >> which action?
12:57am
. >> things like everything from being more conscious of how what they're throwing away and how they're recycling. john: if we recycle more will that affect climate change? >> i think it will start. every little bit counts. >> set up recycling bins. >> recycle everything. >> if he and everybody recycled, would that affect climate change? >> definitely. i force him to throw things away when i'm not looking, but i pick through the trash. >> sometimes i'm going to throw this away because i can. >> more people i think should be walking, bike riding. john: that wouldn't change my life much. that's how i get to work. but it won't make a dent in climate change. and why should everyone have to live the way i do? also, most everyone i interviewed talked about recycling as you heard, recycling has almost nothing to do with climate change. it might reduce our need for landfills but no shortage of
12:58am
space for landfills, most of what we heard was meaningless, feel good blather and government pass laws requiring pointless changes to our lives, because once you decide nature's good and moral, the reasons to restrict human activity are endless. some environmentalists won't be satisfied until our carbon footprint is zero. that would require abolishing civilization, if our impact on nature is so evil, abolishing us wouldn't be so bad. the group first earth had the slogan back to the pleostine. we worry so much about what environmentalists say, most submit to green demands. we don't have time to do the complex calculations about economic trade-offs, it's easier to recycle something, but the earth won't notice.
12:59am
rarely do people think about climate change in terms of costs as well as benefits. when we asked people about their preferred source of power, they were almost unanimous. >> solar power, definitely. >> solar. it's cleaner. >> solar energy. without a doubt. john: really? even though it's much more expensive and takes up vast areas of land for solar panel? and it only produces power sometimes? we want it because it makes us feel good. but it lasts. good news. sometimes i see a glimmer of hope, someone who gets it, despite all the propaganda, even from her own mom. when we ask about the best source of power, we get one sensible answer. >> solar power, we need to explore solar power. >> i think oil, we need to explore it. john: yes! we do need to explore for oil, because at the moment, fossil fuels like oil are all that
1:00am
stand between us and poverty. i can't wait for that girl to run for president! that's our show. see you next week. ow. [dave gentry] hello, i'm dave gentry. welcome to "small stocks, and big money." [ intro music ] [ intro music ] [ dave gentry ] for all of our , it's nice to m meet you. and for those of you who are already members of the the redchip nation, thank you for being part of the fast-growing community of small cap investors in the world. and whether you're watching in seattle, new york, las vegas, rome, somewhere in croatia austria, portugal, or norway. all places where we